Cargando…
Comparison of Miller laryngoscope and UEScope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial
With different videolaryngoscopes for pediatric patients available, UEScope can be used in all age groups. The aim of this study was to compare the Miller laryngoscope and UEScope in pediatric intubation by paramedics in different scenarios. Overall, 93 paramedics with no experience in pediatric int...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6511341/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30976922 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00431-019-03375-y |
_version_ | 1783417558058139648 |
---|---|
author | Smereka, Jacek Madziala, Marcin Dunder, Dominika Makomaska-Szaroszyk, Elzbieta Szarpak, Lukasz |
author_facet | Smereka, Jacek Madziala, Marcin Dunder, Dominika Makomaska-Szaroszyk, Elzbieta Szarpak, Lukasz |
author_sort | Smereka, Jacek |
collection | PubMed |
description | With different videolaryngoscopes for pediatric patients available, UEScope can be used in all age groups. The aim of this study was to compare the Miller laryngoscope and UEScope in pediatric intubation by paramedics in different scenarios. Overall, 93 paramedics with no experience in pediatric intubation or videolaryngoscopy performed endotracheal intubation in scenarios: (A) normal airway without chest compressions, (B) difficult airway without chest compressions, (C) normal airway with uninterrupted chest compressions, (D) difficult airway with uninterrupted chest compressions. Scenario A. Total intubation success with both laryngoscopes: 100%. First-attempt success: 100% for UEScope, 96.8% for Miller. Median intubation time for UEScope: 13 s [IQR, 12.5–17], statistically significantly lower than for Miller: 14 s [IQR, 12–19.5] (p = 0.044). Scenario B. Total efficacy: 81.7% for Miller, 100% for UEScope (p = 0.012). First-attempt success: 48.4% for Miller, 87.1% for UEScope (p = 0.001). Median intubation time: 27 s [IQR, 21–33] with Miller, 15 s [IQR, 14–21] with UEScope (p = 0.001). Scenario C. Total efficiency: 91.4% with Miller, 100% with UEScope (p = 0.018); first-attempt success: 67.7 vs. 90.3% (p = 0.003), respectively. Intubation time: 21 s [IQR, 18–28] for Miller, 15 s [IQR, 12–19.5] for UEScope. Scenario D. Total efficiency: 65.6% with Miller, 98.9% with UEScope (p < 0.001); first-attempt success: 29.1 vs. 72% (p = 0.001), respectively. Intubation time: 38 s [IQR, 23–46] for Miller, 21 s [IQR, 17–25.5] for UEScope. Conclusion: In pediatric normal airway without chest compressions, UEScope is comparable with Miller. In difficult pediatric airways without chest compressions, UEScope offers better first-attempt success, shorted median intubation time, and improved glottic visualization. With uninterrupted chest compressions in normal or difficult airway, UEScope provides a higher first-attempt success, a shorter median intubation time, and a better glottic visualization than Miller laryngoscope. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6511341 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65113412019-05-28 Comparison of Miller laryngoscope and UEScope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial Smereka, Jacek Madziala, Marcin Dunder, Dominika Makomaska-Szaroszyk, Elzbieta Szarpak, Lukasz Eur J Pediatr Original Article With different videolaryngoscopes for pediatric patients available, UEScope can be used in all age groups. The aim of this study was to compare the Miller laryngoscope and UEScope in pediatric intubation by paramedics in different scenarios. Overall, 93 paramedics with no experience in pediatric intubation or videolaryngoscopy performed endotracheal intubation in scenarios: (A) normal airway without chest compressions, (B) difficult airway without chest compressions, (C) normal airway with uninterrupted chest compressions, (D) difficult airway with uninterrupted chest compressions. Scenario A. Total intubation success with both laryngoscopes: 100%. First-attempt success: 100% for UEScope, 96.8% for Miller. Median intubation time for UEScope: 13 s [IQR, 12.5–17], statistically significantly lower than for Miller: 14 s [IQR, 12–19.5] (p = 0.044). Scenario B. Total efficacy: 81.7% for Miller, 100% for UEScope (p = 0.012). First-attempt success: 48.4% for Miller, 87.1% for UEScope (p = 0.001). Median intubation time: 27 s [IQR, 21–33] with Miller, 15 s [IQR, 14–21] with UEScope (p = 0.001). Scenario C. Total efficiency: 91.4% with Miller, 100% with UEScope (p = 0.018); first-attempt success: 67.7 vs. 90.3% (p = 0.003), respectively. Intubation time: 21 s [IQR, 18–28] for Miller, 15 s [IQR, 12–19.5] for UEScope. Scenario D. Total efficiency: 65.6% with Miller, 98.9% with UEScope (p < 0.001); first-attempt success: 29.1 vs. 72% (p = 0.001), respectively. Intubation time: 38 s [IQR, 23–46] for Miller, 21 s [IQR, 17–25.5] for UEScope. Conclusion: In pediatric normal airway without chest compressions, UEScope is comparable with Miller. In difficult pediatric airways without chest compressions, UEScope offers better first-attempt success, shorted median intubation time, and improved glottic visualization. With uninterrupted chest compressions in normal or difficult airway, UEScope provides a higher first-attempt success, a shorter median intubation time, and a better glottic visualization than Miller laryngoscope. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019-04-11 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6511341/ /pubmed/30976922 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00431-019-03375-y Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Smereka, Jacek Madziala, Marcin Dunder, Dominika Makomaska-Szaroszyk, Elzbieta Szarpak, Lukasz Comparison of Miller laryngoscope and UEScope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial |
title | Comparison of Miller laryngoscope and UEScope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial |
title_full | Comparison of Miller laryngoscope and UEScope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Miller laryngoscope and UEScope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Miller laryngoscope and UEScope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial |
title_short | Comparison of Miller laryngoscope and UEScope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial |
title_sort | comparison of miller laryngoscope and uescope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6511341/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30976922 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00431-019-03375-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT smerekajacek comparisonofmillerlaryngoscopeanduescopevideolaryngoscopeforendotrachealintubationinfourpediatricairwayscenariosarandomizedcrossoversimulationtrial AT madzialamarcin comparisonofmillerlaryngoscopeanduescopevideolaryngoscopeforendotrachealintubationinfourpediatricairwayscenariosarandomizedcrossoversimulationtrial AT dunderdominika comparisonofmillerlaryngoscopeanduescopevideolaryngoscopeforendotrachealintubationinfourpediatricairwayscenariosarandomizedcrossoversimulationtrial AT makomaskaszaroszykelzbieta comparisonofmillerlaryngoscopeanduescopevideolaryngoscopeforendotrachealintubationinfourpediatricairwayscenariosarandomizedcrossoversimulationtrial AT szarpaklukasz comparisonofmillerlaryngoscopeanduescopevideolaryngoscopeforendotrachealintubationinfourpediatricairwayscenariosarandomizedcrossoversimulationtrial |